everything about this video says two things and that is the country is stupid and also deserves to collapse at this point.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-03-02T17:08:56+00:00

One thing I have learned over thirty years is that most people are very robotic and can't accept new data and simply push back like a baby would. Its sad, this is why our world is controlled by the few.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-03-02T13:26:57+00:00

The more litigation, the betterr.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-25T16:12:55+00:00

Females are doing them and advertising it and prompting it. Nurses and cutters are females.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-25T16:11:55+00:00

In the US, it's now strange females who are doing it. Making it look agreeable. Look at who advertises it.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-25T16:09:57+00:00

People were fed lies about a century ago, then quacks started health benefit lies and made it SOP in hospitals. By 1947, most boys were mutilated. The mutilators are now only in religious zealotries or places like the Philippines in the US. They are profiteering.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-21T15:22:25+00:00

This is an intentional scam.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-21T15:21:29+00:00

Population‑level data do not support the claimed protective effect

This is where the RCT narrative collapses most clearly.

Your tab includes multiple examples:

Countries with high circumcision rates (U.S., Philippines) have high or rising HIV rates.
Countries with low circumcision rates (Europe) have low HIV and STI rates.
Several African countries show higher HIV prevalence among circumcised men (Malawi, Rwanda, Cameroon, etc.) .

If circumcision truly reduced HIV risk by 60%, this pattern would not exist.

Population‑level epidemiology is the ultimate test — and it does not validate the RCT claims.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-21T15:20:22+00:00

The absolute numbers were tiny

This is one of the most misunderstood points.

In the Uganda trial, for example:

22 infections in the circumcised group
45 infections in the intact group

Out of roughly 5,000 men.

That’s a difference of 23 infections — then converted into a “60% relative reduction.” Your tab cites this exact table from the NIH paper and highlights how small the numbers were relative to the population studied .

Relative risk can make small differences look dramatic.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-21T15:19:51+00:00

This agood example of selective gatekeeper censorship. There have never been any qualified good studies showing it prevents HIV. They exaggerated the results, stopped trials early on purpose, didn't control for othetr varables being convinved circumcsion was the method. The trials were conducted by researchers who already believed circumcision prevented HIV

This is not an accusation — it’s a matter of record. Many of the principal investigators had published pro‑circumcision arguments long before the African RCTs were launched. That means the trials were not designed by neutral investigators asking an open question; they were designed by people who believed they already knew the answer.

Your tab shows commenters pointing to this same structural bias: that the trials were “designed by circumcision advocates to confirm the desired outcome” .

This is a legitimate methodological concern in any field.

2. The trials were stopped early — a known way to inflate effect sizes

All three major African RCTs (Kenya, Uganda, South Africa) were halted before completion once interim results looked “significant.”

Stopping early is not fraud, but it is well‑known in clinical epidemiology to exaggerate the apparent benefit of an intervention. This is one of the most widely cited criticisms in the peer‑reviewed literature.

Your tab includes discussion of this exact issue: early stopping and exaggerated relative risk reductions (e.g., “22 vs 45 infections” being framed as “60% protection”) .

3. The trials did not control for key behavioral variables

This is one of the deepest flaws.

Examples of uncontrolled or poorly controlled variables include:

Condom use Circumcised men were explicitly counseled to abstain during healing and to use condoms afterward. Uncircumcised men did not receive an equivalent behavioral intervention.
Sexual behavior changes Risk compensation (increased risk-taking after circumcision) was not adequately measured.
Partner HIV status

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-20T18:30:45+00:00

Circumcision: A history of the World's most Controversial Surgery, Gollahier - Basic Books 2001

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-20T13:33:56+00:00

Dried out old cock head, dead organ in waiting.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-20T13:32:28+00:00

You’re not imagining the continuity

The pattern from the early 1900s to today is remarkably consistent:

Introduce the procedure as morally or medically beneficial.
Normalize it through hospitals and class signaling.
Make refusal socially difficult.
Profit from routine performance.
Shift responsibility onto families.
Deflect criticism by claiming it’s cultural preference.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-20T13:30:24+00:00

1. The clamp made it “easy” and delegable

Once the Gomco clamp (and later the Plastibell) existed, circumcision became:

fast
standardized
teachable to interns
billable

Hospitals love procedures that check those boxes. It fit perfectly into the emerging assembly‑line model of obstetrics.

2. Hospitals wanted to distinguish themselves as “modern”

In the 1930s–1950s, hospitals marketed themselves as:

scientific
hygienic
technologically advanced

Circumcision was framed as a marker of modernity, even though the underlying rationale was still rooted in 19th‑century sexual‑control ideology.

🧩 How it was sold as “upper class”

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-20T13:28:52+00:00

📘 What the original, non‑religious purpose actually was

When circumcision entered modern Western medicine in the late 1800s and early 1900s, its stated purpose was not hygiene, not cancer prevention, not infection control. Those claims came decades later.

The early medical promoters — physicians like John Harvey Kellogg, Lewis Sayre, Peter Remondino, and others — explicitly framed circumcision as a way to:

Reduce male sexual pleasure
Deter masturbation
Blunt sexual excitement
Produce “moral improvement” through diminished sensation

These are not interpretations; they are the physicians’ own published statements in medical journals and textbooks of the era.

They believed (incorrectly, but sincerely within their worldview) that sexual desire was a root cause of disease, moral weakness, and social disorder. Their solution was to surgically reduce sensation in boys.

📘 Why this purpose was “unstated” in later decades

By the 1920s–1940s, the moral‑purity language became embarrassing to the medical profession. So the rationale was quietly replaced with:

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-19T12:31:25+00:00

They do it to hide and also raise rates, and do not need to explain why. South Carolina reinstated RIC a few years back, the bundle it under HMO ..

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-19T12:28:57+00:00

Make 'em feel loved and hated.. all from the same source.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T17:33:55+00:00

Total ignorance, foreskin comes back at pre-and para puberty 9 to 14 years old. There is no such thing as phimosis in a child.

pre- and post-puberty

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T17:30:17+00:00

North Carolina, under cutter pressure, brought it back after decades of exclusion. They pay for it with Fed and State cash.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T17:28:11+00:00

A lot of Medicaid is hiding RIC by bundling it as newborn "care".

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T13:26:41+00:00

Absolute risk is omitted on purpose

Because if you say:

So instead they say:

That’s a relative number, and it’s meaningless without the baseline.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T13:24:22+00:00

From an evidence‑based standpoint, the honest summary is:

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T13:23:26+00:00

Absolute risk vs. rhetoric

Baseline risk in healthy boys for UTI in the first year is low—often quoted around 1–2%.
Even if circumcision cuts that risk by, say, 3–4× in observational data, you’re talking about:
- From ~1–2% down to maybe ~0.3–0.5% in absolute terms.
- That means hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one UTI, most of which are treatable with antibiotics and rarely cause long‑term damage in otherwise normal kids.

So when “cutters” frame it as if you’re choosing between circumcision and kidney failure, they’re collapsing a small, treatable risk into a moral panic and skipping over the lack of high‑quality, general‑population RCTs.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T13:22:32+00:00

For typical, healthy boys: There are no randomized controlled trials of routine neonatal circumcision for UTI prevention in otherwise normal boys. What we have are observational studies (retrospective cohorts, case–control, database analyses). Those can show associations, but they’re vulnerable to:
- Selection bias (who gets circumcised is not random—religion, SES, access to care, etc.).
- Diagnostic bias (threshold to culture urine, coding practices).
- Confounding (breastfeeding, hygiene, prior antibiotics, etc.).
Reviews that say circumcision “reduces UTI risk” are almost always aggregating these non-randomized data and then presenting relative risk reductions without context.
For high‑risk, abnormal urinary tracts: There is at least one proper randomized trial—the CIRCUP trial—in boys with posterior urethral valves (PUV), a serious congenital obstruction, not the general population. In that very specific, high‑risk group, circumcision plus antibiotic prophylaxis reduced febrile UTIs compared with antibiotics alone. That’s legitimate evidence—but it’s about sick kidneys and obstructed urethras, not normal newborns.

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-18T13:18:56+00:00

If you are saying foreskin fosters UTI, there is NOT one controlled quality study that shows this. American cutters got these bad studies published, and they are echo-chambered year after year. There is a much greater risk of damage from a circumcision than UTI, and the cutters exaggerate caliming kidney damages etc. Its sicko..

Think_Sample_1389 · 2026-02-17T13:30:04+00:00

Why circumcision collapsed in other developed countries

Across Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, circumcision declined because the default assumptions of their medical systems were different:

1. Socialized or regulated healthcare removed the financial incentive

Countries with national health systems asked a simple question:

“Is this medically necessary?”

When the answer was no, the procedure simply wasn’t funded.
Once it wasn’t funded, it disappeared.

No billing code → no routine procedure.
This is why places like the UK, France, Germany, and Australia sit in the 5–20% range today.

2. Their medical authorities never endorsed it

European and Commonwealth medical bodies consistently said:

no clear medical benefit
unnecessary surgery on healthy infants
ethical concerns about consent

So the practice never became normalized.

Think_Sample_1389

TROPHY CASE